Archive for September, 2009

American children are being indoctrinated with anti-Democratic ideologies in American colleges, universities, and K-12 public schools with socialism, communism, and Islam. While parents believe traditional societal values are upheld, some schools are intentionally breaching customary positions of trust by providing a failing quality of education as compared to generations past. The widespread violation of standards infringe on family orientation, political and social identity, and religious persuasion.

Seditious movements fund educational programs in an effort to undermine American values to alienate children from their parents and grandparents, and ultimately replace traditional concepts with those subservient to a new world order. Emerging ideologies that alter the mind of American children are totalitarian allies– Communism and Islam. In full assault on our nation, the ideologies are demeaning our founding fathers and undermining the core of our Democracy through our children.

A September 2008 article titled “Saudi Infiltration into U.S. Education,” written for Israel National News, by Hillel Fendel warns that Saudis are using petrodollars to influence American education beginning in elementary schools. Sarah Stern, who heads the Washington, D.C. based Endowment for Middle East Truth think-tank (EMET) said the Saudis are making use of a clause called “Title VI” to indoctrinate teachers from K-12th grade with anti-American, anti-Israeli standards. Title VI and the loopholes in Bill Clinton’s 1995 Educational Guidelines allow off-campus activists to propagandize teachers and students at the taxpayer expense. Stern noted that:

“The law says you have to have teacher training seminars on campuses, and these have a radical anti-American bent. There is a place in New Mexico called Dar el Islam, a giant 1,300-acre complex that has a mosque, a madrassa [Islamic theological school], a summer camp, a teacher training workshop, and a publishing house that publishes some of the most virulent translations of the Quran, as well as the materials for their teacher-training that are used all over the country – and all stamped with the fancy blue-green-white star emblem of ARAMCO, the state-owned national oil company of Saudi Arabia. They are very, very stealth – I call this the ‘soft jihad’ against America.”[1]

Title VI was first legislated in 1958 as a response to the Cold War because it was felt that American children did not know enough about the threat of Communism or the global market. Subsequently, a large amount of taxpayer money was set aside to fund college campus programs for regional studies such as African, Asian, and Middle Eastern studies.

In 1978, Edward Said of Columbia University wrote a book called “Orientialism” which became the prevailing and dominant trend in academia, making a Middle Eastern studies program very indoctrinating. In the book, Said espoused that only individuals from given regions are qualified to talk or write about that region’s main religion.

Politicians welcomed programs and students from the Middle East when Arab leaders began lavishing generous donations to American educational institutions. In return, they demanded special privileges and the right to influence policy favorable to Islam.

Over the last 30 years, the Saudi royal family has contributed over $70 billion to promote Arab studies that center around Islam and spread anti-American and anti-Israeli propaganda. The Saudis give millions of dollars to American Universities and their motive is clearly stated by the official Saudi English weekly Ain-Al-Yaqeen:

“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, under the leadership of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Fahd Ibn Abdul Aziz, has positively shouldered its responsibility, and played a pioneering role in order to raise the banner of Islam all over the globe and raise the Islamic call either inside or outside the Kingdom.” [2]

Donations to universities can be made anonymously so it is impossible to know exactly how much money they receive and from whom. Some institutions receiving millions of dollars in Saudi funds are listed in the table below. Some of the Universities that receive Saudi endowments include Berkeley, Harvard, Columbia University, USC, Duke University, and even Texas A&M, to name only a few. [3]

By no means complete, the list includes known donations where possible.

University

Funds Received at Least Once

Berkeley

Cambridge

University of California at Santa Barbara

University of California at Berkeley

$5,000,000

Harvard Law School

$2,500,000

Harvard University

Howard University

Cornell University

$11,000,000

Georgetown University

$28,000,000

Columbia University

$5,000,000

Reutgers University

$5,000,000

Johns Hopkins University

University of Chicago

American University

University of Southern California

University of Idaho

University of Michigan at Ann Arbor

Ohio State University

Arizona State University

University of South Florida

Rice University

Duke University

Syracuse University

American University of Colorado

American University in Washington, D.C

University of Arkansas

$20,000,000

Princeton

$1,000,000

MIT

$5,000,000

Texas A&M

$1,500,000

Rice University accepts Saudi money for an Islamic Studies Chair. Duke University, Syracuse University, American University of Colorado, American University in Washington, D.C., and Howard University have allowed the Saudis to set up research institutes.

The endowments allow professors and so-called intellectuals the ability to promote an Islamic agenda while afforded protection under freedom of speech laws. Title VI allows for the payment of professors salaries. It also supports Saudi student activists that are trained overseas in the summer to learn terrorist tactics, and return in the fall. Thus, more and more anti-American and anti-Israel doctrine is spread, with nothing being done to stop it.[4]

Islamic organizations within American Universities are numerous. Islamic studies programs or research programs within the institutions also support the spread of Islam in America. One fund, named after Osama Bin Laden’s brother, The Bakr M. Binladin Visiting Scholar Fund at Harvard Law School, brings “visiting scholars” to study law at Harvard with the stipulation is that scholars must be citizens of a predominantly Muslim country.

The Saudi Arabian government views Western culture as its enemy, and so uses our universities as propaganda machines and research facilities. It may even use them as terrorist havens, such as The Muslim Student Association (MSA), an organization that encourages involvement in jihad, has established hundreds of chapters on colleges and university campuses across America. The co-founder of al-Qaeda, Wael Jelaidan, is one of several MSA members arrested on terrorist related charges.[5]

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal’s Georgetown University Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, (ACMSU) is just one organization that has been donating millions of dollars for Middle East studies programs. The so-called “gifts” shrewdly promote Islamic indoctrination without condemning Islamic punishments of amputations, stonings, hangings, honor killings, punishments for blasphemy, executions of apostates, persecutions of non-Muslims, sanctioned wife-beatings, female genital mutilations, etc. Rather, ACMSU presents Islam in ways that will appeal to naïve Westerners. Using terms like “Interfaith Dialog” and “Islamic Art,” the pretense of a more “moderate” version of Shari’ah law is really just to get the camel’s nose in the tent, and allow for radicalism once numbers allow. Radical Islam can take years and generations to take root, but once put into practice, it is far from what Americans call moderate.

There are many programs that take advantage of the Title VI Program. The King Fahd Chair for Islamic Shari’ah Studies, the Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud Program in Arab and Islamic Studies, the H.E. Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani Islamic Legal Studies Fund, the King Fahd Chair of Oncology and Pediatrics, and the Bakr M. Binladin Visiting Scholar Fund. Saudi funded educational institutions in the United States give millions of dollars to American Universities to implement their agenda. Brigitte Gabriel, author of “They Must Be Stopped,” and founder of ACT! For America, a national grassroots organization dedicated to spreading the truth about the Islamic agenda, refers to recipient universities as “occupied territories.”

The American Educational Trust (AET), established in 1982 was funded by American businesses and Arab donors. AET can afford to provide speakers to scores of colleges and universities at no charge, reportedly setting up its organization with $1,072,237. [6]

The AET website claims to:

“provide the American public with balanced and accurate information concerning U.S. relations with Middle Eastern states. AET perceives a dearth in knowledge about the Middle East, Arabs, and Muslims, in the U.S., and pursues an educational mission of Interpreting the Middle East for North Americans; Interpreting North America for the Middle East.”

Saudi billionaire friend of Hillary Clinton and advisor on Islamic affairs, Abdurrahman Alamoudi, then President of the American Muslim Council, supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah, sentenced to jail in 2004 for eighteen counts of terrorism related activities and accused of ties with Osama bin Laden, met often with Bill and Hillary Clinton to contribute to Bill Clinton’s Religious Expression in Public Schools education guidelines. As a result of this alliance, funding for Islamic educational materials poured in from Saudi Arabia and Muslim nations.

Launched by Clinton in 1995, these guidelines greatly affect public schools today even though education is not in the federal government’s jurisdiction, but is actually adjudicated to individual states.

In August 1995, Clinton provided every public school district in America with the Religious Expression in Public Schools education guidelines, which included an ambiguous statement of principles for religious expression, and activity in our public schools. Colluding with non-religious groups as well, Clinton removed all former reference to the Bible, Christianity, and the Pledge of Allegiance from our public schools. The Pledge of Allegiance is now unconstitutional because it contains the phrase “one nation under God.” Nadine Stresses, President of the ACLU, refers to the 1995 guidelines as the authority to support the ACLU’s lawsuits restricting Christmas celebrations and removing Nativity scenes from public schools.

The 1995 guidelines drafted by the American Muslim Council, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the ACLU’s effective removal of Christianity diminished a cultured sense of American nationalism. Regarding his contribution to the guidelines, the director of the CIE at the time, Shabbir Mansuri, boasted that he was “promoting world cultures” and “waging a bloodless revolution” in America’s classrooms.[7]

The ACLU and the Council of Islamic Education (CIE) helped write Houghton Mifflin textbooks for K-12 American public schools with Islamic beliefs presented as historical fact. Houghton Mifflin collaborates with Microsoft and also publishes college textbooks for MS software programs actively promote multiculturalism, globalism, and political correctness indoctrination in college settings.

Way back in 1995, the Council of Islamic Education warned American scholars and public officials they would be perceived as “islamophobes,” racists, reactionaries, and enemies of Islam if they did not support promotion of Islam in American public schools. Islamic organizations applaud Clinton for helping them achieve the victory of their religious obligation to propagate Islam.

At the end of his term, Bill Clinton addressed Muslim leaders with a Ramadan message. Muslim leaders often ask for public statements, as they would later ask President Bush to humor them with formal public statements on behalf of the Arab vote. The statement that Clinton made is particularly disturbing because it is beyond protocol and good manners. The public message Clinton gave the Muslim leaders contained the unnecessary Islamic story as if it were an undisputed fact:

“As America’s six-million-member Muslim community grows in numbers and prominence, Americans of every religious tradition are learning more about the origins and meaning of Islam. That on ‘the Night of Power,’ the Angel Gabriel appeared to the Prophet Muhammad and revealed to him the first verses of the Koran. That the Koran declares that Ramadan was the month Allah’s words were sent down, and so should be spent in fasting.” -Bill Clinton

It is plausible the statement was a concession an act of obligatory allegiance and loyalty. A leader’s honor and loyalty hinges on public statements and in this case requires endorsing a disputed Islamic doctrine, while alluding to allegiance on behalf of all Americans and American policy and compromising the American education system.

Today, Christian instruction, prayer, and public nativity scenes are outlawed yet Clinton nominee, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton of San Francisco, approved an interactive program called “Islam: A Simulation,” for public schools. The program forced California children at Excelsior Elementary School in Byron, California to “learn to become Muslim, recite the Quran, fast for Ramadan and pray Islamic prayers.”[8] In December 2003, the San Francisco court determined the school district did not violate the Constitution and was not indoctrinating students when it required them to adopt Muslim names and pray to the Islamic deity, but was just teaching them about the Muslim religion.[9]

The course was part of a curriculum taught to seventh-graders all over the state which many California schools participated in. California ruled that the state’s public schools must teach Islam in classes. California standards require Islam be taught in 7th grade, Judaism and Christianity is to be taught in 6th grade, and is covered in just two days as opposed to two weeks for Islam. Studying Christianity does not involve role playing and is presented as oppressive.[10]

The simulation forces students to memorize Islamic prayers and recite verses from the Quran. Students adopt Islamic names, and write about their experience as a Muslim at the end of the program. The exercises encouraged students to incorporate Islamic devotional phrases into speeches, and imagine they are on a pilgrimage to Mecca. The program involves state-approved curriculum using state-adopted textbooks that have now been part of the instructional program in California for over a decade. [11]

A textbook adopted by the State of California “Across the Centuries,” published by Houghton Mifflin, prompts students to imagine they are Islamic soldiers and Muslims on a Mecca pilgrimage. Simulations encourage children to use devotional phrases such as “Allahu Akbar,” Arabic for “Allah is greatest,” and to fast during lunch to experience fasting during Ramadan. Yet, Judge Hamilton ruled the program was devoid of “any devotional or religious intent” and was, therefore educational, not religious in nature. [12]

But this is endorsement of Islam with Islamic indoctrination in our public schools under the guise of social studies and history, and at the expense of freedom of religion. Stealth Islamic conversion of our youth, using loopholes in the Education Guidelines is part of a traitorous alliance that enables the Muslim Brotherhood’s resolve to destroy America.

Not only is the alliance shocking, the longer it continues, the more difficult and dangerous it will be to reverse. Victories in Islam are like a Russian doll, setting the stage for subsequently larger victories. Ultimately, when numbers allow, the Islamic penalty for any who try to take away an Islamic achievement is death. The penalty for anyone who converts out of Islam is also death. Therefore, Islamic indoctrination puts non-Muslim children in peril because according to Islamic doctrine and Shari’ah law, one must agree to follow Islam once principles are known whether agreed or not. In the Islamic context, “understanding Islam” is not meant to be interesting information. When Muslims tell non-Muslims about Islam, they are telling them required behavior; i.e.; what to think and how to behave to avoid a backlash and condemnation in the future.

Michigan State University researchers showed the importance of leading students through a logical chain of information to break down pre-existing conceptions “that are deeply held and based on intuitive or naive beliefs about the world.” The study found that acting out lessons makes information stick.

Michigan State researchers developed an experimental middle-school science curriculum, found that science is not just memorized facts and terms, but an information process that is acted out to build a picture and an explanation. One of their key findings was the importance of leading students through a logical chain of evidence, showing them a variety of phenomena that can be explained by the same basic principle, and providing the chance to use the ideas. Researchers found that this procedure is not only essential to making the insights stick, but crucial in breaking down pre-existing beliefs, noting that science is not just memorized facts and terms, but a process that builds a picture. Findings showed that regardless of the accuracy of a curriculum, action makes the information stick.

A separate article, “The Trouble with Textbooks,” written by Stephen Budiansky in February, 2001 refers to the Michigan State study. In an effort to describe what sticks in a students mind, Budiansky noted that:

“textbooks have always been an easy target for those out to lambaste the state of public education, and that in the area of science and math, many factors are at work in the poor showing of U.S. students, including poor teacher preparation.”

Budiansky also noted the importance of research by George Nelson, a former astronaut who directed a science and mathematics reform initiative of the American Association for the Advancement, called “Science Project 2061.” Noting the importance of textbooks, Nelson wrote:

“textbooks are the de facto curriculum in this country,”

and that:

“textbooks ought to be the easiest things to fix.”

Therefore it can be concluded that the acting out process in “Islam: a Simulation,” did not merely serve to teach history and culturally enlighten, but according to the Michigan State research and Project 2061 research, the information was presented in a manner that is scientifically proven to make the Islamic teachings stick in the minds of the California youth, regardless of accuracy.

According to Budiansky, the study of middle-school science textbooks studied by Project 2061 found that science books examined did not meet the minimum requirements for effectively teaching science. Nelson said that:

“Our students are lugging home heavy texts full of disconnected facts that neither educate nor motivate them.”

In a study conducted by the National Science Teachers Association, 23 percent of middle school teachers reported they have taught subjects in which they had no prior course work. Nelson emphasized that because so many teachers are deficient in math and science skills, they rely disproportionately on the provided texts. [13]

A book titled “The Trouble with Textbooks: Distorting History and Religion,” conducted by president of the Institute for Jewish & Community Research (IJCR), Dr. Gary Tobin, and research associate Dennis Ybarra, details a 5-year joint study noting a significant amount of misinformation in American textbooks and supplemental materials in schools in every state. The study cites offensive passages that present false information and undermine the very foundation of the American educational system.

The IJCR study looked at 28 prominent history, geography and social studies textbooks and concluded that American public school students are being overloaded with Islamic and Middle Eastern indoctrination at the expense of Christianity and Judaism. It found 500 problematic passages about Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Middle East in widely used textbooks in public schools. The study supported similar assessments that history textbooks throughout the U.S. school system glorify Islam and are critical of Jews and Israel; and disrespectful of Christianity.

Tobin and Ybarra observed that Islam is taught in the books as a matter of fact, while Judaism and Christianity are treated as beliefs. The glossary of the textbook, World History: Continuity and Change, states as undisputed fact that the Koran is the “Holy Book of Islam containing revelations received by Muhammad from God.” The same glossary describes the Ten Commandments as “moral laws Moses claimed to have received from the Hebrew God Yahweh on Mount Sinai.” Likewise, the Islamic empire of the Middle Ages was described as “a time of unqualified glory without blemishes.” Other excerpts state that Muslims “always tolerated Jews,” “unlike their Christian counterparts.”

Tobin and Ybarra concluded that history and religion are alarmingly distorted in schools in every one of the 50 states. The study describes how the textbook publishing process suffers from lack of competition and expensive development and adapting of textbooks. Major competitors are down from nine to three in less than twenty years, and control the K-12 textbook market today.[14]

The American Textbook Council (ATC), established in 1989 as an independent national research organization to review social studies textbooks and advance the quality of instructional materials in history, worked for two years to review five junior high, and five high school World, and American history texts. The ATC found that the history textbooks used by hundreds of thousands of students in the U.S. public school system blatantly promote Islam. The resulting report, authored by Gilbert T. Sewall, was titled “Islam in the Classroom: What the Textbooks Tell Us.”

The ATC report noted that Islamic organizations are active in curriculum politics and willingly provide misinformation in an effort to expel any critical thought about Islam, without eliminating its agenda. Assisted by partisan scholars and public relations associations many individuals with the power to shape the curriculum are blind to, or openly promote Islamic efforts. The report confirms findings that the texts present “disputed definitions and claims with regard to Islam as established facts.” The report continued:

“Islamic activists use multiculturalism and ready-made American-made political movements, especially those on campus, to advance and justify the makeover of Islam-related textbook content…Particular fault rests with the publishing corporations, boards of directors, and executives who decide what editorial policies their companies will pursue…”

The review examined how history textbooks characterize Islam’s foundations and creeds; what changes and additions have occurred in textbook material written before and after 2001; what textbooks say about terrorism, 9/11, and weapons of mass destruction. It outlines Islamic challenges to global security and asks about looming dangers to the U.S. and the world. The ATC found that deficiencies about Islam in textbooks copyrighted prior to 9/11 persisted and in some cases have grown worse. Errors about Islam in older textbooks had not been corrected even when publishers had having learned of contested facts, and were given time to make corrections.[15]

Instead of making corrections or adjusting contested facts, publishers and editors defend misinformation with omissions profound and intentional. The report said lessons contain “stilted language that seem scripted or borrowed from devotional, not historical, material.”

The book, Medieval to Early Modern Times features a two-page prayer to Allah “the Merciful.”[16]

The textbook, “World Civilizations,” published by Thomson Wadsworth said,

“Excepting the Old Testament’s poetry, the Jews produced very little of note in any of the art forms … There is no record of any important (early) Jewish contributions to the sciences.”

Another book, titled “The World,” published by Scott Foresman, claimed that

“Christianity was started by a young Palestinian named Jesus.”

Historical inaccuracy does all students of religion, history, and social studies a disservice, and further suggests a motive for such bias, such as the endorsement of Islam over other religions. Discoveries in the study include routine negative stereotyping of Jews, Judaism and Israel. Some of the texts accuse the Jews of committing deicide (exterminating a diety such as Allah), and blame Israel for starting wars in the Middle East. The texts describe Jewish writings as “stories,” “legends” and “tales,” and errors are frequent throughout the books that were investigated.

The ATC report noted that several of the textbooks were harshly criticized by parents. In a Sacramento district, a parent whose child was given the text, “History Alive! The Medieval World and Beyond” published by the privately held Teachers Curriculum Institute (TCI), accused the publisher of an extremely pro-Muslim bias.

The students’ parent believed that teaching world history was acceptable, but objected to the teachings of Islam, while not addressing Christian doctrine to the same degree. The same parent said the book has only one page referencing Jews. Most of the information concerning Jews was to convey that the Jews were tortured by Crusaders to force them to convert to Christianity. It did not mention the Holocaust, or Jewish persecution by Arab Muslims for centuries thru today. The book did not give due credit to the Jews for their significant impact on the region or the culture at large, but blamed the Jews for the plagues and problems in the land.

Bert Bower, founder of the Teachers Curriculum Institute (TCI), and an executive for one of the texts reviewed by ATC, told World Net Daily that not only did his company have experts review the book, but the state of California and scholars from all over the world also reviewed it and approved it for use in public schools. One of those worldly experts was Ayad Al-Qazzar, who helped write The Arab World Notebook, a book that will be discussed next.

The ATC report noted that most textbook publishers align their work to a ban on “adverse reflection.” Adverse reflection means that a topic is conceptually at odds with historical and geopolitics. One book asks readers the question, “How did the caliphs who expanded the Muslim Empire treat those they conquered?” The book’s answer: “They treated them with tolerance.” The report said:

“Glossing over the actual physical conquering of some peoples, the book, World History: Medieval and Early Modern Times says people converted to Islam because they were attracted by Islam’s message of equality and hope for salvation.”

Islamic presentation throughout the books is described as “sugar coated,” and the books describe Islam as a “wonderland-of-tolerance often spun like cotton-candy,” where “Hope for salvation” may actually mean “survival”, when history shows that the only escape from death literally was submission to Islam. Westerners erroneously think that submission means conversion. In reality, submission means allowing Islam to reign supreme. The lives of the conquered could then be spared only if they agreed to pay a “jizya” tax and agree to live as second-class citizens known as “dhimmis.”

The books describe the Crusades as “religious wars launched against Muslims by European Christians.”“History Alive! The Medieval World and Beyond” says the Crusaders wore red crosses. The French Templars wore red crosses, but Spaniards, English, German, Italians, and Greeks also fought against the Muslims in the Crusades after Muslims had encroached on their Christian lands for centuries. For centuries leading up to the Crusades, Muslims had sanctified the invasion and pillage of Christian lands murdering and taking the indigenous citizens as slaves. Yet, the books describe the process of Muslim invasion of Christian lands as “building an empire,” and describes Christian attempts to restore those lands as “violent attacks” and “massacres.”

The report also found that the books magnified Christian brutality while ignoring precedent information on Islamic inequality, subjugation, and enslavement, while inaccurately describing Shari’ah religious law, dhimmitude, women’s rights and terrorism. Regarding 9/11, the book “The Modern World” gives an example of such non-committal in reference to 9/11:

“On the morning of September 11, 2001, teams of terrorists hijacked four airplanes on the East Coast. Passengers challenged the hijackers on one flight, which they crashed on the way to its target. But one plane plunged into the Pentagon in Virginia, and two others slammed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York…”

The description unconcernedly fails to explain who “they” were, and what they wanted to accomplish. The minimal explanation evades any connection to Islamic terrorism and jihad, and indicates a total lack of understanding and remorse. The ATC report concluded:

“Many political and religious groups try to use the textbook process to their advantage, but the deficiencies in Islam-related lessons are uniquely disturbing. History textbooks present an incomplete and confected view of Islam that misrepresents its foundations and challenges to international security.”[17]

An imam from Turkey, Fethullah Gülen, who considers himself a prophet has a network off hundreds of charter schools in America Gülen is touted as a reformist and advocate for tolerance, a catalyst of “moderate Islam.” He is praised in the United States as an intellectual, scholar, and educator even though his formal education is limited to five years of elementary school.

Gülen has met with Christian clergy, Pope John Paul II, and Jewish rabbis in an effort to promote Islam under the guise of promoting an interfaith dialogue. Islamic doctrine has traditionally tied itself to Christianity and Judaism using common stories between the latter two as a door opener. Gülen has also used the literature of great Sufi thinkers pretending to share in their moderation. Gülen’s movement is called the Fethullah Gülen Community (FGC). The FGC runs hundreds of secondary schools and dozens of universities in 110 countries including charter schools in twenty-four states in the U.S. Gülen’s followers target youth in the eighth through twelfth grades preparing them for careers in law, politics, and education to create the ruling classes of a future Islamist, Turkish state. The FGC also donates money to universities such as Georgetown University.[18]

ACT! For America, a grassroots organization that helps Americans understand the tactics used by Islamists in their world conquest endeavor, issued an exclusive report about the FCG. The report revealed that Gülen is particularly dangerous is his strategic and tactical means to achieve this goal. Not only does Gülen oversee a worldwide network of schools, but his estimated budget of 25 billion dollars also funds businesses, foundations and media outlets. In a 1999 sermon on Turkish television, Gülen described stealth jihad:

“You must move in the arteries of the system without anyone noticing your existence until you reach all the power centers … until the conditions are ripe, they [the followers] must continue like this. If they do something prematurely, the world will crush our heads, and Muslims will suffer everywhere, like in the tragedies in Algeria, like in 1982 [in] Syria … like in the yearly disasters and tragedies in Egypt. The time is not yet right. You must wait for the time when you are complete and conditions are ripe, until we can shoulder the entire world and carry it … You must wait until such time as you have gotten all the state power, until you have brought to your side all the power of the constitutional institutions in Turkey … Until that time, any step taken would be too early—like breaking an egg without waiting the full forty days for it to hatch. It would be like killing the chick inside. The work to be done is [in] confronting the world. Now, I have expressed my feelings and thoughts to you all—in confidence … trusting your loyalty and secrecy. I know that when you leave here—[just] as you discard your empty juice boxes, you must discard the thoughts and the feelings that I expressed here.”

The FCG schools offer recruitment for outside school activities such as summer camps, which recruit members and followers. They advocate “taqiyya,” which is sanctioned as obligatory lying when deception is a means to protect and further Islamic causes. Misleading information and headlines often convey two different messages, one to the indigenous Islamic population and one to the West. This deceptive practice is common in the Islamic world, and has led many in the West, including political leaders and academics, to be misled as to the true intentions of Islamists.

President Obama is pushing to relax requirements for charter schools while Islamic organizations are pushing to expand Charter schools. Not classified as “private” schools, charter schools currently cannot legally endorse or promote a religion.

Funded by Minnesota taxpayers, Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TIZA) is a K-8 charter school in Minnesota that operated as an Islamic school for five years before the state finally ruled against it.

TIZA has one campus in Inver Grove Heights and a smaller site in Blaine, has about 430 K-8 students, most of who are Muslim. Founded in 2003, TIZA receives state per-pupil funding. The state education department expected funding to total $4.7 million for the 2008-2009 school year.

With a mosque and the headquarters of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota share the school building, founders Asad Zaman and Hesham Hussein, both leaders of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, and local imams, opened TIZA for the 2003-2004 school year with Imam Asad Zaman as the principal. TIZA is named after a Muslim warlord, Tarek ibn Ziyad, who invaded Spain from Africa in a bloody battle in the eighth century, marking the beginning of the Muslim conquest of Spain. Upon his arrival in Spain, Tarek ibn Ziyad ordered his Muslim forces to burn their boats:

“Brothers in Islam! We now have the enemy in front of us and the deep sea behind us. We cannot return to our homes, because we have burned our boats. We shall now either defeat the enemy and win or die a coward’s death by drowning in the sea. Who will follow me?”

The soldiers then rushed ahead, crying “Allahu akbar.” To defeat a superior Spanish force.[19] Islamists boast that Muslims ruled the country for hundreds of years afterward so well that Spain became a fountainhead of culture and civilization for the whole continent of Europe.[20]

An initial review of TIZA operations found that the school was nonsectarian, and not in violation of Minnesota law or federal guidelines on constitutionally protected prayer in school. The Minnesota Department of Education maintained that TIZA was not an Islamic or a religious school. The review found that prayer on Monday through Thursday appeared to be voluntary and student led.

In January 2009, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Minnesota filed suit against TIZA, and the Minnesota Department of Education. The ACLU claims that TIZA received millions of dollars of taxpayer money to support a private religious school, citing that the school receives state per-pupil funding expected to total $4.7 million for 2008-2009 school year.

The state’s ACLU Executive Director, Charles Samuelson, said the school used government aid money to pay rent to holding companies, and then funnel funds to the Muslim American Society of Minnesota and Minnesota Education Trust, which the ACLU says is a non-profit group that promotes Islam. The ACLU claims that a conflict of interest is created because the society and the school were incorporated by the same person, and on the same day, and are really one in the same organization.

Students at TIZA pray Islamic prayers, the cafeteria serves food that is prepared according to Islamic law, and Islamic Studies are held on the campus at the end of the school day. According to a TIZA report, seventy-seven percent of TIZA parents said their main reason for choosing TIZA was for the after-school programs. Yet the Imam-Principal Asad Zaman maintained that TIZA is not a religious school.

For years, Asad Zaman used loopholes in President Bill Clinton’s 1995 Educational Guidelines to teach Islam at TIZA, as will be evident in the unfolding story. The Guidelines were assembled with the help of Hamas and Hezbollah supporter, Abdurrahman Alamoudi, who, prior to his arrest and conviction on terrorism related charges in 2004, was President of the American Muslim Council.

In March 2008, a substitute teacher at TIZA revealed that Islam did play a significant role at TIZA. On the Friday the substitute teacher arrived at TIZA, and was told that after lunch there would be a “school assembly” in the gym. Prior to the assembly her duties would include taking her fifth-grade students to the restroom to perform what was described as “their ritual washing.”

After their ritual washing, teachers led the children into the gym, where a man dressed in white was preparing to lead a prayer. Beside him was another man prostrated in prayer on a carpet.

The substitute teacher said that the prayer activity was not voluntary. Children were “corralled by adults and required to go to the assembly where prayer occurred.” She also said that the school day included after-school Islamic Studies. She said that assignments written on the blackboard included studying the Koran, and was told that Islamic Studies were held after school and she might have to stay for hall duty.

At the end of the day, her fifth-graders stayed in the classroom. The man who led the prayer in the gym came into the classroom to teach Islamic Studies to the students while the busses waited outside. After the Islamic Studies class was over, the busses took the children home.

The Minnesota Department of Education had not noticed the religious practice during any of their visits. In 2004, the Assistant Commissioner sent two letters to the school inquiring about reported religious activity. When questioned, Imam-Principal Asad Zaman said that prayer in the school was voluntary and student-led, and the department accepted Zaman’s answer without confirmation. [21]

TIZA’s website requested volunteers to help with the Friday prayers. The website advertised a “rigorous Arabic language program” as well as “an environment that fosters your cultural values and heritage.” It explained the school’s efforts to provide students with a:

“…learning environment that recognizes and appreciates the traditions, histories, civilizations and accomplishments of Africa, Asia and the Middle East.”

In an e-mail, Zaman explained the request for volunteers to help with Friday prayers was to ensure that TIZA staff members were not involved in organizing the Friday prayers. However, it is still probable that it was TIZA staff members who planned the website, organized the schedule, and requested the volunteers. It does not change the fact that the prayer services took place in the school building during school hours. According to federal guidelines on prayer in schools, teachers at a public school cannot participate in prayer with students. Zaman admitted that “some” Muslim teachers “probably” attended the prayer session. [22]In the spring, 2008, Minnesota Department of Education began a review, saying that the school must change the way it handles prayer in school and after school busing. Also, under Minnesota State Law, the school was ordered to raise an American flag every day in session. Furthermore, the Department informed TIZA that Minnesota state law requires schools to provide transportation at the end of the normal school day.[23]

Zaman claimed that K-8 school began to receive death and arson threats as a result of media attention, frightening students, so police began patrolling the school. In response to Zaman’s claims and because television reporters went to the school unannounced, TIZA obtained a security system requiring visitors to buzz at the school entrance.

As a result, on Fridays the school began to release teachers and most students at midday. Parent volunteers, or a community member led students who stayed behind in prayer, and those who did not want to pray could read or engage in a quiet activity. From Monday-Thursday, students were given the option of signing up for after school activities including a fee-based Muslim studies course, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, or a free secular program.[24]

While it may seem reasonable to say that students can sit out of the prayer, there is enormous pressure to pray within a group. Students who choose not to pray will be noted and stigmatized, potentially leading to problems at home from religious parents who would then feel shamed. Prayer in school is a form of coercion, and would likely lead to problems for non-praying students, and more lax parents within the larger Muslim community. This same coercion would automatically extend to fasting at Ramadan, when food is probably not even available at Muslim schools, and eating in front of fasting students would be viewed as ‘blasphemous.”

Muslims would have us believe that prayer is mandatory at prescribed times, when in fact it is not. Muslims are allowed to postpone their prayers as long as necessary. If prayer is not convenient at a given time, for reasons such as when in the presence of non-Muslims, or at a workplace, or normal public school, etc., Muslims can postpone them. Prayers can accumulate for days on end, but cannot be done in advance. Of course, it in inconvenient to have to do more prayers later, but children could actually wait to do their afternoon prayers when they are at home.

Concerning young female students is the requirement that women do not pray when they are menstruating. In fact, Muslims believe Allah will reject prayers of women when performed during monthly menstruation. Therefore, whenever a female student sits out of a prayer, everyone will know she is menstruating. In a subtle way then, and a gross violation of privacy, all boys and men in the school will know which girls are menstruating and which ones are not. Furthermore, some students may not want to practice Islam and would prefer to live in a Democratic society without Islamic coercion.

Allegations against TIZA are that the school’s main campus was not originally built as a school, and the lease was not reviewed by either the state Department of Education or the state Department of Administration. Also, there are prayers on the walls of the school entry and teachers have participated in student prayer activities. Samuelson said the school used its website to seek volunteers to lead prayers, and that it requires students and staff to dress in attire that conform to Islamic religion. He also said the school issues a handbook instructing staff to not discuss what goes on at the school.

Federal guidelines do allow students to organize prayer groups in public schools, but teachers and school employees may not compel students to pray or actively participate in student prayer. Samuelson noted that the Minnesota ACLU has sued other public school districts for promoting Christian sects. It has sued cities around the state for violating the separation of church and state clause of the First Amendment, including the city of Duluth for putting a Ten Commandments monument on the city hall lawn. [25]

Saudi-associated organizations hold the mortgages of 70% of America’s mosques. Along with financing comes control over many, if not all, aspects of the mosque. For example, Saudi/Wahhabi authorities are able to influence the selection of their imams, their training, the Korans and other materials they use, their sermons and programs for mosque schools.[26]

Aside from charter schools, another serious concern is Saudi Arabian government run schools. The Saudis run nineteen international schools including The Islamic Saudi Academy (ISA) in northern Virginia. Chaired by the Saudi ambassador to Washington, the school shares the embassy’s employer tax number under the name of the “Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia.” Since 2003, The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has issued four reports warning that the school’s textbooks contain intolerant language that indoctrinate students with Islamic supremism, polarization, and incitement. The Saudi government agreed to remove disparaging references, but in 2008, passages still clearly pressed readers to commit acts of violence.

According to a June 11, 2008 article by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a twelfth-grade textbook the school uses defines just cause for killing in the case of:

“…unbelief after belief, adultery, and killing an inviolable believer intentionally.”

Non-Muslims can be exempt from the cruel and unusual punishment if they have certain agreements with the Islamic governments such as American businesses in Saudi Arabia, as described in a ninth-grade textbook:

“It is not permissible to violate the blood, property, or honor of the unbeliever who makes a compact with the Muslims. The blood of the mu’ahid is not permissible unless for a legitimate reason…the mu’ahid is an unbeliever who contracts a treaty with a Muslim providing for the safety of his life, property, and family.”

The implication is that violence against non-Muslims is lawful unless an agreement is effective. Such agreements for loyalty are exemplified by American oil companies operating in Saudi Arabia, financial institutions that provide Shari’ah compliant products, politicians and agents who lobby for Saudi causes such as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, and Barrack Obama. It is reasonable to conclude that even George W. Bush’s lack of immigration enforcement and open borders was an agreement to keep America safe from attack.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has long called for Saudi Arabia to be designated a “country of particular concern,” for systematic violations of religious freedom. Expressing concern over promotion of religious intolerance, and religious-based violence in textbooks used in Saudi Arabia and at Saudi schools abroad, the Commission has urged the U.S. government to press the Saudi government to promote tolerance since 2001. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights bans discrimination and incitement, and specifically provides that education:

“shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups…”

The Declaration specifically provides that:

“The child shall be protected from any form of discrimination on the ground of religion or belief. He shall be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, peace and universal brotherhood, and respect for freedom of religion or belief of others. . .”

It is shocking that high school students in the United States are among those discussing when, and under what circumstances killing non-Muslims is allowed. The U.S. government must ensure that the Saudi government reviews and revises the globally distributed books. The U.S. government should insist that the Saudi government behave as members in good standing of the international community, regardless of the huge amount of world market dollars they may control.[27]

Ayad Al-Qazzar, a Muslim apologist, so called ‘worldly’ expert and frequent speaker in Northern California school districts promoting Islam and Arab causes

helped write a 540 page Arab World Notebook that was distributed to over 10,000 teachers, reaching 25 million students. The Arab World and Islamic Resources (AWAIR) is a proselytizing non-profit organization that conducts teacher workshops and sells supplementary materials to schools in an effort to promote Islam.

The Textbook League in Sausalito, California is a resource for middle school and high-school educators. It lists readings, resources, and so-called lesson plans in a two-version publication aimed at teachers. A 1998 version of their publication says The Arab World Studies Notebook is published jointly by the Middle East Policy Council (MEPC) and by the Arab World and Islamic Resources and School Services (AWAIR). The editor of the Arab World Notebook is also the director of AWAIR, a woman named Audrey Shabbas.

The MEPC is a pressure group based in Washington, D.C., known prior to 1991 as the Arab American Affairs Council. Its activities include sponsoring teacher workshops to indoctrinate teachers about the Arab World and Islam.

President of the Textbook League, William J. Benneta investigated MEPC’s Web site, and Arab World Studies Notebook. On the Website page with the same name as the notebook, he read a claim about the Arab World Studies Notebook:

“…an updated and enhanced version of the Arab World Studies Notebook (1990), a previous work so highly regarded that educators in California were permitted to purchase it with state funding.”

Bennetta investigated and found the claim false, noting that the Curriculum Framework and Instructional Resources Office (CFIRO) of the California State Department of Education does not appraise content. Therefore, granting approval does not mean that an approved publication is highly regarded. Furthermore, Benneta contacted the administrator of the CFIRO and found that there was no record of ever approving The Arab World Studies Notebook. The Introduction to the Arab World Studies Notebook, states:

“Believing firmly that teachers are the vanguard of change in any society, AWAIR has taken as its mandate, to impact the very resources chosen and used by teachers as well as the training and sensitizing of teachers themselves.”

The phrasing “training and sensitizing” actually means subjecting teachers to heavy bombardment of religious and political propaganda, knowing that they have little to zero prior knowledge on the subject of Islam. Bennetta wrote that:

“The Arab World Studies Notebook is a vehicle for disseminating disinformation, including a multitude of false, distorted or utterly absurd claims that are presented as historical facts. I infer that the Arab World Studies Notebook has three principal purposes: inducing teachers to embrace Islamic religious beliefs; inducing teachers to embrace political views that are favored by the MEPC and AWAIR; and impelling teachers to disseminate those religious beliefs and political views in schools.”

Bennetta noted further that:

“The promotion of Islam in the Arab World Studies Notebook is unrestrained, and the religious-indoctrination material that the Notebook dispenses is virulent. Muslim myths, including myths about how Islam and the Koran originated, are retailed as matters of fact, while legitimate historical appraisals of the origins of Islam and the Koran are excluded. Shabbas wants to turn teachers into agents who, in their classrooms, will present Muslim myths as history,” will endorse Muslim religious claims, and will propagate Islamic fundamentalism.”

A lesson in the Arab World Studies Notebook says that Jesus ‘is an important figure in Islam’ Another lesson plan says that Islam ‘recognizes Jesus.’ It is a fact that Muslims recognize Jesus, yet deny and denounce basic Christian teachings, such as that Jesus was divine and part of the Trinity. Jesus is apparently important enough in Islamic teachings that Muslims are enjoined to not take Christians and Jews as friends (Koran 5:51). They also are enjoined to believe that Christians are perverse (Koran 9:30). And to deny that Jesus was crucified. (Koran 4:157).

Koran passages reject essential Christian beliefs about Jesus, and Muslim propagandists conceal the Koran’s judgment that Christians and Jews are unfit to be accepted by Muslims as allies or friends.

The prevailing belief of Muslims about Jesus is that Christians are wrong in their understanding of Jesus; and that Jesus, who lived before Muhammad, was actually a Muslim. Yet, Muslim propagandists in America, strive to create the impression that Islam is congenial to, and a logical conclusion to Christianity while routinely and dishonestly exploiting how Jesus is perceived in the Koran and in Muslim culture.

In the Arab World Studies Notebook, unsupported claims about Muslims in the pre-Columbian New World are completely without documentation or support, leading one to speculate the intended audience consists of teachers who in an effort to keep their jobs, and lacking knowledge of history and religion, will advocate what they are told without question.

One ridiculous and unsupported myth in the Arab World Studies Notebook is that Muslims supposedly reached the New World in pre-Columbian times, spreading throughout the Caribbean, Central America, South America and even Canada. According to the myth, by the time Columbus arrived, the New World was full of Muslims. English explorers supposedly met Iroquois and Algonquin chiefs who had names like ‘Abdul-Rahim’ and ‘Abdallah Ibn Malik!’ Shabbas does not cite any sources to support the claims and does not reveal names for the English explorers.

The Arab World Studies Notebook is full of unqualified statements such as the one on page 27 that states, “As is well known, the Qur’an was revealed through the Prophet Muhammad . . .” It does not say how it is well known, or by whom it is well known. In fact, in America, a country where 80% of the population claims to be Christian, it is neither well known nor mainstream. It is however, recognizable to Christians as Islamic-fundamentalist myth.

The Arab World Studies Notebook states, “The Koran is the last link in a chain of revelation going back to time immemorial, even to the very origin of humankind.” Muslims believe the Koran is a miraculous revelation channeled through Muhammad, who was illiterate. Left to memory for centuries, it is not known how many versions of the Koran were written and rewritten before an accepted version was assembled, or who actually wrote them down.

Another myth in the Arab World Studies Notebook is that the Koran condemns wars of “territorial conquest.” No doubt, Muslims would prefer peaceful conquests, however the book says that from the 8th through 13th centuries, Arabian Muslims built a great empire that “extended across North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia, from Spain to the borders of China.” It does not say exactly how the conquest took place or acknowledge that thousands of churches, temples, and civilizations were destroyed in the process, or that 270,000,000 non-Muslim lives were lost in nearly 1400 years of violent jihad.[28][29]

Americans will not tolerate loss of freedom for subversive ends through trickery and deceit. Yet a stealth movement is rapidly seeking to impose objectionable “Shari’ah Law” in place of Democracy and the Constitution.

According to Lebanese born terrorist expert, and founder of ACT! For America, Brigitte Gabriel,

“For the last 16 years, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states … because of the money coming from the oil, have been pumping millions of dollars into our universities appointing Arab professors who are anti-American, and anti-Israel, have been basically brain-washing our students to believe we (Americans) are the problem.”

“The children, who have been educated in American universities for the last 16 years, have graduated and are now working … not influenced … by our patriotic education as Americans, but they have been influenced by Arab thinking … and hatred based on revenge.”

The evidence of such brainwashing is an attempt to raise our children against us and force them to ultimately live in dhimmitude. Many responsible groups and individuals aware of the treacherous violations of freedom are aware that an attempt to undermine our society is underway. Western free thinkers will never stand for such a breach in conscience and it will be exposed and stopped as historical fact and geopolitical reality inevitably lead to differences in culture and religion. Forced multiculturalism and political correctness provide fertile ground for hostilities in an attempt to abolish cherished and established standards of the hosting culture, which in this case is America.

America is in a highly compromised position of servitude after decades of concessions with the Saudis in order to preserve invested interests and to obtain oil. In order to do business in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia, the United States is compliant to wishes that are both unconstitutional and unhealthy for Americans. Submissiveness to Saudi rules has placed America in a state of dhimmitude, or servitude to Islamic conditions, that extends into the arena of energy, security, policy, education, finance, and religion.

The U.S.-Saudi alliance began as a result of the need for oil and the desire for U.S. corporations to cash in on new business opportunities. Initially well-intended and lucrative, the relationship became compromised when oil companies began to do the bidding of Saudi Arabia. With oil and American company’s interests at stake, the Saudi’s began using oil as a weapon to create a powerful anti-Israel lobbying force in Congress. Saudi political interests have been shamefully imposed on hundreds of thousands of organizations, businesses, politicians, financiers, and educators, to influence American policy and American public opinion. From the beginning of the dubious relationship, ARAMCO officials, the U.S. Department of State, and the Defense Department had pressured the Truman administration not to recognize the new state of Israel because they correctly feared it would anger the Saudis and endanger future American oil company profits.

King Saud needed a new source of revenue in 1933 so he agreed to grant Standard Oil of California exploration rights for oil when he was facing bankruptcy. Since pre-Islamic days, tax dollars collected from pilgrims visiting Mecca provided a major source of revenue, but the number of pilgrims had decreased by 20th century. Exploration led to discovery of oil in 1936 and the formation of the Arabian-American Oil Company Oil (ARAMCO) before the end of the decade with Texaco, Mobil, and Exxon joining to become a giant multinational oil consortium.

The National Security Council, the Treasury Department, the State Department, and officials of the oil companies, agreed to transfer American oil companies tax payments from the U.S. Treasury directly to the Saudis instead of having to pay foreign aid to the Saudi Kingdom. The Saudis were satisfied with the arrangement, but in the 1970’s the newly formed OPEC countries started exercising more control and demanded assets and partial control in some oil companies.

Successor to the Saudi throne, King Faisal, was increasingly at odds with America over U.S. policy with Israel, and nationalization of the oil companies became a threat when the king demanded that American oil companies actually work to change U.S. policy toward Israel. That policy included extorting the U.S. into trying to force the Israelis out of the territory they had acquired as a result of the Six Day War in 1967 and even out of Jerusalem completely. As foreseen by the Truman Administration, King Faisel warned the president of ARAMCO that American oil companies must prove their loyalty to Saudi Arabia or suffer higher oil prices, and perhaps lose all their investments in Saudi Arabia. So, in order to keep their investments intact American oil companies began hiring lobbyists to influence Congress. “American national interest” then began to reflect Saudi interests and officials began public relations efforts such as lobbying, media projects directed at efforts to improve the Arab image and change America’s opinion regarding Israeli concerns and Israel’s right to exist.

Lobbying involves public relations campaigns at the taxpayer’s expense. Foreign governments contract lobbying firms to get Congress to pass specific bills or to sway opinion for investments in the U.S. that are not always best for Americans. Sometimes lobbying efforts involve enticements to attract American investors out of America and into foreign countries, such as domestic tax hikes achieve. Thousands of lobbyists, lawyers, public relations firms, and political consultants are paid to push the agendas of foreign governments, foreign corporations, and foreign leaders at the American taxpayer’s expense. Lobbyists in turn earn millions of dollars for ostensibly traitorous propaganda efforts.[1]

In 1972 an agreement allowed oil-producing countries to receive 25% of each American oil company’s profits allowing for a gradual transfer of ownership that would reach 51% by 1983. The American oil companies did not realize that loopholes in the agreement would allow the Saudis to demand additional money per barrel in the future.[2]

Oil as a weapon in the struggle against Israel was regularly proposed at Arab Petroleum Congresses. The Six Day War in 1967 led to the 1967 oil embargo in a joint Arab decision to deter support for Israel. Several Middle Eastern countries limited their oil shipments. Some embargoed only the U.S. and the United Kingdom, while others placed a ban on all oil exports. In an effort to define what countries would be included in the embargo, several Arab countries issued a statement with the following two resolutions:

“Arab oil shall be denied to and shall not be allowed to reach directly or indirectly countries committing aggression or participating in aggression on sovereignty of any Arab state or its territories or its territorial waters, particularly the Gulf of Aqaba.”

The Gulf of Aqaba is a large gulf of the Red Sea that shares a coastline with Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. The second provision was:

“The involvement of any country, directly or indirectly in armed aggression against Arab states will make assets of its companies and nationals inside the territories of Arab countries subject to the laws of war. This includes the assets of oil companies.” [3]

After the Six Day War in June 1967, Persian Gulf members of The Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) cut oil production by 5% a month until Israeli forces evacuated Arab lands. The Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) headquartered in Kuwait, composed solely of Arab Countries including Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, was formed in 1968 to coordinate energy policies specifically for Arab nations with the original intention to control oil as a weapon.

In 1973, Egypt and Syria attempted to over run Israel in the Yom-Kipper War and declared it would no longer ship oil to the United States and other countries that supported Israel. The 1973 oil embargo was a result of America’s decision to resupply Israel militarily. OPEC members subsequently raised world oil prices, but after negotiations at the Washington Oil Summit in March 1974, the embargo was lifted.[4]

Syria and other Arab states put pressure on Saudi Arabia to use their petrodollars against Israel after the price of oil quadrupled in 1973. Previously just $3.00/barrel, some Arab countries were earning $12.7 million dollars an in 1974.[5]

The 1973 oil embargo was the first sign of using oil as a weapon for political gain. From then on, a number of OPEC and OAPEC countries would use their control to renegotiate contracts, particularly with American companies. [6]

Steven Emerson, journalist and former staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wrote an eye-opening book about anti-Israeli activities promoted by prominent Americans in order to get Saudi petrodollars. Emerson, who is now the executive director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, described in his book “The American House of Saud: The Secret Petrodollar Connection” how Arab petrodollars have been diffused throughout American society with scandalous political consequences. Emerson’s book revealed how American officials in Saudi Arabia and the United States, through political funding, have severely manipulated the political process and the free market to influence American policy in their favor.[7]

Non-oil producing companies involving politicians, lawyers, financiers, the education system, and the media were drawn into a scheme comprised of an influential “petrodollar” class that is far more powerful today. Emerson’s book revealed how American corporations, business executives, and former government officials became zealous lobbyists to gain wealth from Saudi petrodollar investments,for Saudi political interests in a decades long secret agenda of anti-Semitic goals.[8]
Saudi anti-Semitism is so extreme and controlling that they ban companies doing business with Israel to a “black list.” The blacklist forbids American companies from doing business with American companies that do business with Israel.[9]

Saudis enticed and contracted thousands of American business leaders to industrialize and modernize Saudi Arabia with their enormous new wealth. American companies were encouraged to open subsidiaries in Saudi Arabia with offers of free land, suspension of taxes, and interest-free loans. The American businesses included goods manufacturers, defense manufacturers, investors, bankers, contractors, architects, universities and executives. Some of the companies that received mega contracts early on included Litton, Hughes Aircraft, Turner Construction, Holiday Inn, Hyatt, Hilton, Marriot, Sheraton, Westinghouse, Pillsbury, Pan American Airlines, Borden, and General Motors[10]

The Saudis also loaned billions of dollars to leading American companies. As early as the 1970’s Chrysler was indebted to the Saudis for $100 million. IBM was granted a $300 million loan, and AT&T received a loan for $650 million.[11]

The relationship between the Saudis and the Americans was not only one-sided with regards to Israel. It was also biased when it came to religion. Daniel Pipes cited in a Winter-2002/2003 article, “The Scandal of U.S.-Saudi Relations,” an example of political subservience when President George H.W. Bush went to the Persian Gulf region in 1990 at Thanksgiving to visit 400,000 American troops who were protecting the Saudis from an Iraqi invasion. When the Saudi authorities learned of President Bush’s plans to say grace before Thanksgiving dinner, they objected and informed him that Saudi Arabia recognizes only Islam. Bush complied with the Saudi’s and decided to celebrate Thanksgiving on the U.S.S. Durham in international waters.

In April 2002, The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) at Waco complied with Crown Prince Abdullah’s demands while he was travelling across Texas to visit President George W. Bush when Prince Abdullah did not want any females on the ramp or talking to the airplane.

In 1991, the U.S. military had taken the initiative requiring female personnel based in Saudi Arabia to wear Islamic religious attire. When off-base, the American government required the women to ride in the back seat of vehicles driven by men. The highest-ranking female fighter pilot in the U.S. Air Force at the time, Lt. Col. Martha McSally said in 1995:

“I’m able to be in leadership positions and fly combat sorties into enemy territory, yet when I leave the base I hand over the keys to my subordinate men, sit in the back, and put on a Muslim outfit that is very demeaning and humiliating.”

McSally filed a lawsuit in early 2002 citing violation of free speech, the separation of church and state, and gender discrimination. After McSally filed her lawsuit, the Department of Defense changed the clothing requirement and rescinded the policies of sitting in the back of a vehicle and requiring a male escort. However, women are still “strongly encouraged” to follow rules giving “host nation sensitivity” a priority.

“The American House of Saud” revealed that the leading U.S. companies in Saudi Arabia; ExxonMobil, Chevron, Texaco and Boeing did not employ women, at least in the early eighties. At that time, several other U.S. companies, including Citibank, Saks Fifth Avenue, Philip Morris and Procter & Gamble, had women on their payroll, however, following Saudi custom, they worked in separate offices from men. American businessmen say that the companies follow Saudi customs so they will not jeopardize their investments.
The United States does not stand up for freedom of speech, assembly, the right to travel, women’s rights and religious liberties in Saudi Arabia, and these breeches in freedom almost always stem from Islamic laws. For example, Saudi and Islamic laws give Saudi fathers custody of children in divorces, and the State Department even accepts those laws when Saudi fathers abduct children from the United States. The State Department has not made a genuine effort to confront the Saudi authorities over domestic cases, nor made effective efforts to free children who are held against their American families’ wishes. In cases featured at a June 2002 hearing in the House of Representatives and many others, the U.S. government did not stand up for the mothers or the children.

Saudis will not tolerate Christians at prayer. An incident involving American troops in Saudi Arabia in December 1990 describes how formal Christmas services were forbidden on Saudi soil. Christmas trees were not allowed, and American officials were expected to seize and dispose of Christmas decorations and other Christmas symbols. Christmas cards sent to Americans through Saudi post boxes were destroyed and U.S. stamps portraying religious scenes were torn off packages and letters. Labeled “C-word morale services,” all Christmas gatherings were to be undetectable to the Saudis.

Timothy Hunter, a State Department employee during 1992-95 described methods he was told to use to discourage Catholics and Protestants from worshipping while he was based in Saudi Arabia. With Hunter’s communications limited to Catholics, he was told to pretend he did not know of any worship services. Even though there actually were religious services held on Tuesdays referred to as “Tuesday Lectures,” Hunter was to avert the questions as long as possible. He was told to arrange a meeting with any inquisitor who persisted to gain a sense of their credibility. Hunter said that he never actually admitted anyone to the Tuesday Lectures. Non-Catholic Americans were directed to the British Consulate but since the U.K. services were usually full, most of Americans did not attend.

Hunter explained a long-standing procedure of prohibiting Jews from the Kingdom. Though select senior diplomats of Jewish origin were allowed to visit Saudi Arabia on official business, Jewish-American diplomats of low or mid level standing were not permitted to be stationed in the Kingdom. Hunter described that it was the duty of the Foreign Service Director of Personnel to screen all Foreign Service officers who applied for service in Saudi Arabia, denoting Jewish officers’ names with the letter “J.”

Congressional hearings in 1975 exposed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and its subcontractors of excluding both Jews and Blacks from projects in Saudi Arabia, even though U.S. law states “U.S. companies cannot rely on a country’s customs or local preferences and stereotypes to justify discrimination against U.S. citizens.”
The arrangement was challenged in 1959 when the New York State Supreme Court condemned the practice of asking prospectiveemployees if they were Jews. New York condemned the discrimination by ruling that ARAMCO had conformed to the practice of not hiring Jews in an effort to appease Saudi Arabia:

“. . . our basic documents of freedom are never to be subordinated to immediate business gain…no matter what the King of Saudi Arabia says…” [12]

The New York Court enforced the ruling and told ARAMCO:

“Go elsewhere to serve your Arab master but not in New York State.”

Dynalectron, a firm that hired helicopter pilots headquartered in McLean, Virginia, arranged for its employees to convert to Islam. In another case, a female employee of a hospital service and supply firm in Abu Dhabi sued her employer for firing her because she referred to Israel as “The Holy Land” in a company newsletter she had written.[13]

World Airways, who boasted of having more Hajj pilgrims to Mecca than any other airline in the world, was charged in 1975 for demanding proof from it staff, of church membership, baptism or marriage in churches for traveling to Saudi Arabia.

A man who worked with the Army Corps of Engineers, ARAMCO, and Raytheon Corp, said that mail censors confiscated a photo of his 95-year-old grandmother because the photo disobeyed Saudi laws regarding women.
In 1995, when five Americans were killed in Riyadh, the Saudi Kingdom executed the suspects before the U.S. law enforcement officials could interrogate them. Saudi’s were also uncooperative in the investigation surrounding American troop deaths in the 1996 terrorist attack on Khobar Towers, a housing complex used to house foreign military personnel. When King Faisal held a state dinner for Henry Kissinger in the1970’s, he accusingly informed the Secretary of State that Jews and Communists were working together to undermine the civilized world and that the creation of Israel was a Bolshevik plot to divide America from the Arabs. In order to avoid a confrontation instead of challenging the ridiculous statements, Kissinger took the role of dhimmi by changing the subject and asking the king a question about palace artwork.

Regarding dissatisfaction with U.S. and Israeli alliance, Crown Prince Abdullah wrote to President Bush in August 2001, just prior to 9/11:

“. . . a time comes when peoples and nations part. We are at a crossroads. It is time for the United States and Saudi Arabia to look at their separate interests. Those governments that don’t feel the pulse of the people and respond to it will suffer the fate of the Shah of Iran.”

Abdullah’s plan for solving the Arab-Israeli conflict required that Israel retreat to its 1967 borders, a serious concern to President Bush. In a statement featured in the U.S. press in April 2002, a leading Saudi figure warned that the Kingdom would contemplate joining forces with America’s worst enemies if necessary:

“. . . we move to the right of bin Laden, so be it; to the left of Libya’s ruler Muammar Qaddafi, so be it; or fly to Baghdad and embrace Saddam like a brother, so be it.”

The statement had no apparent effect on U.S. policy. Reports from a following summit indicated that Abdullah gave warning to President Bush that if an agreeable position was not reached regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict the two countries would part ways. [14]

After September 11, 2001, the U.S. government did not reassess policy with, or sue the Kingdom for punitive damages, and Saudi cooperation with American efforts to track down the financing of Al-Qaeda appears to have been useless. Author Daniel Pipes noted that Americans strive to tolerate customs and religions beliefs of other countries, but the lack of reciprocity from the Saudis suggests a payoff.

In “The American House of Saud,” Steve Emerson wrote that a comment by the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, provided an evocative reason for the one-sided relationship with American politicians:

“If the reputation then builds that the Saudis take care of friends when they leave office”…“you’d be surprised how much better friends you have who are just coming into office.”

A former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Hume Horan, said:

“There have been some people who really do go on the Saudi payroll, and they work as advisers and consultants. Prince Bandar is very good about massaging and promoting relationships like that. Money works wonders, and if you’ve got an awful lot of it, and a royal title-well, it is amusing to see how some Americans liquefy in front of a foreign potentate, just because he’s called a prince.”

The statement explains why American officials will overlook national security, human rights and democratic values regarding Saudi Arabia and Arab states interests.

National Review’s writer, Rod Dreher noted that the number of ex-government officials “who now push a pro-Saudi line is startling.” He wrote:

“. . . no other posting pays such rich dividends once one has left it, provided one is willing to become a public and private advocate of Saudi interests.”[15]

A National Post analysis written by Matt Welch declared:

“. . . former ambassadors have carved out a fine living insulting their own countrymen while shilling for one of the most corrupt regimes on Earth.” [16]

Matt Welch wrote that Americans who have worked with the Saudis in official capacities often remain connected to them when they leave public office. Some of them include former President George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton who have given speeches for cash. Jimmy Carter promotes the Saudi agenda with outspoken anti-Israel sentiment and has received millions of dollars from Arab countries. Walter Cutler, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, ran the Meridian International Center, an organization that promotes international understanding through education and exchange. Cutler acknowledged that during his 17 years as President for the center, Saudi donors were “very supportive.”

Daniel Pipes and Steve Emerson reveal that the Kingdom has paid off many ex-Washingtonians such as Spiro T. Agnew, Jimmy Carter, Clark Clifford, John B. Connelly, Gerald Ford, William E. Simon, and various former ambassadors. [17]

Hundreds of former congressional representatives such as minority leader Richard Gebhardt, Congressman Thomas Downey, and Bob Dole were paid consultants and lobbyists for Arab countries. Their services included setting up meetings with members of Congress, making travel arrangements, working on media campaigns to promote the Arab image, highlighting countries specifically important to the United States with no regard for human rights. Lobbyists and political consultants regularly manipulate U.S. foreign policy by influencing Congress, the executive branch, and the American public.[18]

Edward Walker, former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, President of the Middle East Institute in Washington, which promotes understanding with the Arab world, said Saudi contributions covered $200,000 of the institute’s $1.5 million budget in 2001. Walker’s board chairman then was former senator Wyche Fowler, ambassador to Riyadh in the second Clinton administration.[19]

Robert Gray, a former secretary to the Eisenhower cabinet member opened a public-relations firm in 1981. The country of Turkey paid Gray an annual retainer of $300,000 to use his expertise for military aid in defense issues. Kuwait hired Gray to council them on how to handle press inquiries regarding their purchase of Santa Fe International, an oil drilling firm with a nuclear technology subsidiary. Gray worked to reverse American foreign policy and change public opinion regarding Israel for the Saudis.[20]

After intensive lobbying by private corporations, Jimmy Carter agreed to sell F-15’s to the Saudis, and Reagan sold them AWACs. After Reagan sold the AWACs, Greyhound announced a $90 million contract. Three weeks after the AWAC vote, Westinghouse announced a $130 million contract. According to a memo, Westinghouse had paid the public relations firm, South and Baroff $75,000.[21]

In May 2008 President Bush went to Saudi Arabia and it was reported by the press that the trip was in an effort to ask the Saudis to keep oil prices down and sell us oil. This was at a time when oil process had risen sharply and the reason for the hike still remains unclear. The Saudis did not agree to sell us more oil, and as it turns out, another reason for the trip was that the Saudis wanted to discuss a future nuclear program.[22]

Since 1974, U.S. Presidential administrations have kept strategic Saudi investments in America a secret. Critical information about the nature of investments by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates is routinely suppressed from the public, the press, and Congress.

According to “The American House of Saud,” the Treasury Department, investment in the U.S. by Middle East oil exporters was $74.6 billion at the end of 1983. Nearly $40 billion of the total was in government securities, such as Treasury bills and bonds. The remainder included $5.1 billion in corporate bonds, $8.6 billion in corporate stock, $6.7 billion in deposits in American banks, $4.3 billion in non-bank liabilities, $4.8 billion in direct investments, and another $5.1 billion in U.S. government debts.

The office of Saudi Arabian Affairs was established in the Treasury Department[23], and the last year that the Treasury Department released deposit statistics on the Middle East oil producing countries was 1982. At that time, their deposits totaled $13.3 billion. Arab deposits were limited at that time to six U.S. banks: Bank of America, Chase Manhattan, Chemical Bank, Citibank, Manufactures Hanover, and Morgan Guaranty.

The U.S. agreed to secrecy and would not disclose Saudi investments when Arab oil producers began accumulating tens of billions of dollars 1974 after the embargo. In an effort to keep Saudi investments a secret, the U.S. agreed to recycle the petrodollars, and not disclose Saudi investments. Inducing Saudis to purchase U.S. Treasuries required confidentiality from then on. The Treasury Department and other federal agencies have not been able to monitor all of the Arab investments in the United States with offshore tax havens that include dummy corporations, laundered money, and Swiss bank accounts. The lack of adequate government controls has enabled billions of Arab surplus funds to enter the U.S. with estimates that were up to $200 billion as early as 1983.

As part of legislative supervision in the mid seventies, the Senate Subcommittee on Multinational Corporations, chaired by Frank Church, began to look into the relationship between expanding international debt, the concentration of petrodollars in American banks, and a compromised American foreign policy. The subcommittee sent questionnaires to 36 major banks asking for a breakdown of deposits from 22 countries including the OPEC nations. Fearing retribution from the Arab depositors, banks refused to comply. In early September 1975, Kuwait’s minister of finance, Abdul Rahman Atiqi warned Senator Charles Percy and Assistant Treasury Secretaries, Chester Cooper and Gerald Parsky that

“Kuwait would definitely pull its funds out of the U.S. Banks if its position was revealed.”

Two years later, the subcommittee released an in-depth study titled “International Debt, the Banks and U.S. Foreign Policy.” The report by Karin Lisakers revealed a shocking picture of the potential foreign advantage wielded over the banks and the American government.

Lisakers’ report warned of a possible “money weapon” regarding the billions in assets in the U.S. held by the oil producers. At least half of the assets were liquid such as Treasury bills and short-term bank deposits, and movement of the funds would be very disruptive to the financial system. The report concluded:

“In the event of another major outbreak of hostilities in the middle East, in which the United States and Saudi Arabia are likely to find themselves on opposite ides, can one be sure that they will continue to act in the best interest of the Western financial system? Saudi Arabia did not hesitate to use the oil weapon against the United States In the last (1973) Mid-East war, despite earlier warm U.S.-Saudi relations. There is no guarantee that next time they won’t wield the money weapon, too.”

Under Ronald Reagan, Congressman Benjamin Rosenthal wanted to declassify documents that he believed would reveal problems associated with OPEC investments. Changes in Arab investment strategies and increased threats to the stability of American financial markets caused Rosenthal to declassify 17 documents provided by the CIA, including three titled, “OPEC: Official Foreign Assets;”“Kuwait and Saudi Arabia: Facing Limits on U.S. Equity Purchases;”“Problems with Growing Arab Wealth;” and “Kuwaiti Investments in the United States.”

The Saudi embassy in Washington cautioned the Reagan administration against disclosing its investments. Rosenthal nevertheless wrote to Reagan that he intended to publish the documents because some of them raised concerns about OPEC investment. After repeated assurance that there was no basis for concern in the recycling of petrodollars and OPEC investments in the United States, Rosenthal insisted that the documents expressed a different view on the type of investment OPEC governments have been making in the recent past. Without the documents, the public was getting a distorted and one-sided Executive Branch view of the nature, extent, and impact of the investments.

Reagan responded that the disclosure would likely “cause grave injury to our foreign relations or would compromise sources and methods of intelligence gathering,” and “the public interest in avoiding such injury outweighs any public interest served by disclosure.”

Despite fierce resistance, Rosenthal was able to get hundreds of heavily censored documents released. Combined with other published accounts the documents provided an idea of Arab investments and the nature of Arab threats against the United States.

At the time, Kuwait had the most real estate investments in the U.S. Other documents revealed that Kuwait had adopted an aggressive investment strategy in the United States, having acquired control of the $2.5 billion oil and drilling company, Santa Fe Industries. Other investments included the Hawaiian Independent Refinery, Inc, the Andover Oil company in Oklahoma, AZL Resources, Inc. in Arizona, the Petra Capital Corporation in New York, and Solid State Technology, Inc. in Massachusetts. The list included hotels, offices, and shopping centers such as Hilton Hotels in Georgia and Baltimore, the Landmark Hotel in Nevada, the Hotel Statler in New York, the Galleria Mall in Texas, the Columbia Plaza Office Building in Washington D.C. and other real estate holdings in over thirty states.

Middle East oil exporters already held $39.9 billion in U.S. Government securities at the end of 1983, with Saudi Arabia the largest shareholder. Initially investing most of its funds in U.S. government securities, Saudi Arabia became a major investor with strategic interests in American corporations. For example, by 1978, Saudi Arabia was the largest holder of Federal National Mortgage Association (FANNIE MAE).

Confidential documents also showed that in the 1980’s Kuwait owned 4% of stock in one hundred ninety-seven leading American corporations. The Kuwait portfolio was managed by Citibank and included large shares of Mc Donald’s, Ralston Purina, Atlantic Richfield, Johnson & Johnson, General Motors, General Mills, Dow Chemical, Eastman Kodak, J.C. Penny, and Proctor & Gamble. [24]

In 1982, the White House received several reports through Europeans and other intermediaries that unless the U.S. restrained Israel, King Fahd was ready to use the money weapon and start pulling Saudi deposits out of American banks, and liquidate holdings in Treasury bills.

By mid-1977, Saudi and Kuwaiti investors were having difficulties placing funds in the stock market without subjection to an SEC 5% disclosure rule that requires public exposure of over 5% purchase of a corporation, while exempting investors with less than 5%. According to one of the CIA-provided documents, by the end of 1983, the level of Saudi and Kuwaiti investments was so high that Major Saudi investments in the U.S. included the investment banking firms of Smith Barney Harris Upham & Co. and Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette; the security brokerage firm ACLI International; Main Bank of Houston, National Bank of Georgia, Bank of the Commonwealth of Missouri, and Citibank. Other Saudi investments in the U.S. at that time included Coastal and Offshore Plants Systems (aluminum smelting) in North Carolina, Salt Lake International Center in Utah, Sunshine Mining Co. in Texas, RLC Corporation (trucking) in Delaware, Hyatt International Corporation (hotels) in Illinois, Colorado Land and Cattle Company (beef cattle) in Arizona, and real estate in over two dozen states.

In 1983 Rosenthal wrote a bill that was an attempt to ensure that the Congress and American public be adequately informed of the extent of OPEC investment in the United States. The bill did not attract much support in the house of Representatives. The day before it was to be introduced, Rosenthal died after a long battle with cancer. Since then, no other Congressman or Senator has been willing to monitor Arab investment. In early 1984, worldwide Arab assets were estimated to be in excess of $360 billion.

Another organization devoted to ties between the U.S. and the Arab world is the American Arab Affairs Council. Founded in 1981, the Council diplomatic advisory committee consisted of former American ambassadors from Arab countries and was subsidized by large corporations such as Boeing, Hughes Aircraft, and Northrop. The Councils theme was “the interlocking of American economic and political interests in the Arab world.”

The Council has received sponsorship from major corporations and universities for political conferences. One conference had large defense manufacturers, McDonnell Douglas, and General Dynamics as sponsors.[25]

Rachael Ehrenfeld, expert on Shari’ah and terror financing wrote an article in April 2008 titled, “America for Sale,” providing financial information. Her investigation revealed that Bourse Dubai, the world’s first and largest Islamic equity exchange, bought 20 % of the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations (NASDAQ) in December 2007. NASDAQ, an American stock exchange, has the most trading volume per hour of any stock exchange in the world with approximately 3,200 trading companies. Bourse Dubai has also acquired 28 % of NASDAQ’s London Stock Exchange (LSE), resulting in Gulf nation’s control of nearly 52 % of LSE after Qatar acquired another 24 %.

Ehrenfeld noted that the Abu Dhabi Investment Council (ADIC) purchased the Chrysler Building in New York in 2008. A New York Post article in July of that year revealed the $800 million deal included 90 % of the 77-story tower. The New York Post sources also revealed at the time that the secretive ADIC would soon acquire the Trylons, a pyramid shaped hallmark of American architecture designed by Philip Johnson on NY City’s E. 42nd Street.

Ehrenfeld wrote that Arab states sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) “gobble up prime financial institutions, industries and real estate in the U.S. and theWest” leading to increasing political influence. She added that on March 20, 2008, the U.S. Treasury, Abu Dhabi, and Singapore, signed an “Agreement on Principles for Sovereign Wealth Fund Investment.” The next day, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Board of Directors, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) authorized a Sovereign Wealth Fund work agenda.

According to Ehrenfeld’s article, IMF Monetary and Capital Markets director Jaime Caruana said he expects the planned practices to conform to accountability principles, transparency, and to “cover issues of public governance.” Increasingly influenced by those with power and money, and well concealed from the public, practices are easily transgressed and very clearly, not transparent. Middle Eastern Sovereign Wealth Funds are in reality jihadist tools for imposing a one-world Islamic government.

In 2008, Middle East sovereign wealth funds already held $2 to $3 trillion globally, with expectations of reaching $6 to $10 trillion by around 2012.

An overlooked contradiction is that U.S. laws and World Trade Organization (WTO) regulations require all member nations to allow free trade with each other, while the Middle East sovereign funds require a religious based ban on trade with Israel. Rachael Ehrenfeld pointed out that ignoring the Constitution will inevitably lead to undemocratic, “faith based” and totalitarian dictates should Middle Eastern financial masters succeed with their tools and agenda, setting Islamic conditions on the U.S. as well.[26]

Saudi Arabia and other Islamic nations are buying into American and European capital markets with their petrodollars, acquiring large portions of the U.S. and European capital markets, creating unbalanced influential positions that enable the Islamic political agenda. A 1975 quote from an invitation to economic seminars hosted by visiting Arab officials boasted expectations for 1981 that “three-quarters of the world’s monetary reserves would be under Middle Eastern control.” [27]

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nations had achieved two-thirds control of the world’s oil reserves and 35.6% of the world’s oil production by March 2008. OPEC’s ability to control the price of oil is continually threatened with discovery and/or development of large oil reserves in other parts of the world such as the Gulf of Mexico, Russia, and the North Sea, and the Arctic. Concerns that OPEC members would have less accessible oil in the future, speculation mounted that their influence on crude oil prices could someday slip.[28]

As this book proceeds, it will become clear that the Saudis and Arab nations have used oil and financial weight to extort American businesses, the American political system and the American mind. At the time of this writing, 2009, Saudi investments and influence in the U.S., China, and Europe must be truly enormous. While still trying to keep investments secret, the questions arise: Why do the Saudis and Arab investors keep their investments and deposits secret? Were the bombings of the World Trade Centers on both occasions an effort to conceal the true nature of Arab investments? How much of the 2008/2009 Bailout and Stimulus money will go to companies and banks with predominant Saudi and Arab holdings? Are the Saudi’s and Arab states waging financial jihad with the petrodollars we purchase their oil with?

With America’s national debt rising, Anti-Capitalist and anti-Democratic platforms have systematically pushed political correctness, diversity, multiculturalism, and open borders. In an increasingly divided America, globalists welcome influence from foreign powers and immigrants who will give them votes and money, but who have very little interest in being part of our democracy. In this burgeoning new world environment, the Federal Government will soon have the power to put the personal information of all Americans into government databases. Whoever is in control of the government will have access to American’s personal information; school records, business records, medical records, financial records, personal activities, and travel destinations. [1]

Most Americans think of The Bilderberg Group when they think of a one-world government. Started in 1954 at the Bilderberg Hotel in a small Dutch town called Oosterbeek, the group is reportedly comprised of European prime ministers, American presidents, and the wealthiest of the world who meet in secrecy to discuss the economic and political future of humanity.[2]

The methodology of Saul Alinsky and The Cloward-Piven Strategy provide non-secular methods to achieve a one-world government. In 1966, Columbia University radical professors in New York City, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven developed their strategy after studying Saul Alinsky. They basically call for the destruction of capitalism by increasing welfare until it collapses the economy, then implementing socialism by nationalizing many private institutions. Later, Hilary Clinton and Barrack Obama also studied Saul Alinsky. The Cloward-Piven Strategy and Saul Alinsky were the inspiration behind ACORN, the organization where President Obama worked as a community organizer.

Saul Alinsky, closely allied with the Chicago Mob in the 1930’s, was a lifelong ally of the Stalin-controlled Communist Party. Alinsky wrote about how to wage a revolution by controlling the masses to achieve change. In his book, “Rules for Radicals,” Alinsky wrote that a community organizer “must first agitate the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression.”[3] He advocated doing whatever must be done to achieve a goal, clothing it with “moral garments,” and using general benevolent terms for goal phrasing. [4]

The socialist left advocates using any means possible to eliminate capitalism and create a socialist one-world government to impose “social justice” on all mankind. The Alinsky-style art of deception is a valuable tool they necessarily employ.

The Islamist ultimate goal is to subdue the “infidels” and institute Shari’ah, or Islamic law throughout the world for Allah–by imposing their religion in a totalitarian fashion requiring unwavering obedience. They use an Islamic sanctioned method of deception, called “taquiya” to obtain their goals. With strikingly parallel persuasive methods, both groups seek to crush capitalism and democracy by any means and usher in a One-World Government that would control every aspect of daily life.

Their alliance is summarized by an ancient Arab proverb that says, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Professor Ward Churchill provided an example of the alliance and the influence Islamists have on the left when he asserted that terrorist violence directed against the United States is a morally justifiable response to what he describes as the “rape” and “murder” of other peoples by the U.S. government.[5]

Both the Islamists and the radical left aim to overthrow the existing order to create their vision of peace on earth. They both believe that the ends justify the means and any alliance is a means, however temporary, to get them there. Even though their ideas of a utopia are different, their desire to rid the world of U.S. “imperialism” and capitalism necessitates their alliance. As Osama bin Laden himself declared in a fatwa that he issued in March 2003: “The interests of Muslims and the interests of the socialists coincide in the war against the crusaders.”[6]

One huge problem is that they both believe it is moral to use deception, so they are probably not even honest with each other. In the end, one of them will dominate. Blindly believing that the Islamists are their friends, liberals have already conceded far too much. America’s inability to produce sufficient amounts of oil resulting from the Global Warming Treaty guarantees that trillions of dollars will go to Saudi and Arab states. The inconvenient consequence is that America is already a hostage to the Islamic goals via energy dependence. As a result of their wealth, a Saudi-funded Fifth Column has developed in America during the past thirty years. Their petrodollars have been used in this alliance to exert power and influence in America that could ultimately lead to social, financial, political, educational, and religious control. These are the very conditions of dhimmitude that are a prerequisite, part and parcel, of an Islamic One World government.

Dhimmitude is best understood in the context of Jihad, but it works for the leftist agenda as well. Dhimmitude is “tolerance” characterized by siding with one’s oppressors. Historically, dhimmitude was the condition of defeated Christian, Jewish, African, and Hindu communities under Islam. Their dhimmitude resulted from powerlessness and humiliation through conquest. In order to please his oppressors, the dhimmi learns to loathe himself and looses respect for his society to justify hateful behavior toward him. The Dhimmi loses the possibility of revolt because he loses his sense of justice and injustice.

In the Leftist-Islamic alliance, dhimmitude is perpetrated through “globalization” efforts and the corrupting power of oil money to influence think tanks, lobbyists and academic institutions. It involves a potpourri inclusive of imposed guilt feelings, multiculturalism, divisiveness by “diversity,” believing terror is justified because terrorists are poor or exploited, the rising number of Muslims in the West, to ultimately alienate Americans from our culture. Attitudes of dhimmitude have entered Western academia, school textbooks, politics, and the media. If one criticizes Islam, the multiculturalist philosophy is violated, thus endangering chances for “peace.” Giving in to ideology over fact and reality, and fear of being stigmatized as biased prevents one from the ridiculing taunts of “racist,” or “Islamophobic.” Dhimmis pay special taxes called “jizya” for the right to live. Not necessarily identified with the term “jizya,” a “jizya tax” is distorted to imply it is policy for citizen’s “protection.”[7]

New World Order goals are outlined in “The Naked Communist,” a book written in 1958, by Cleon Skousen, a former FBI agent. Skousen claimed that top Western bankers, industrialists and related institutions were behind the rise of Communism and Fascism around the world. With a striking resemblance to dhimmitude, many of these goals have already been achieved:

Permitting free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

Providing American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

Promoting the UN as the only hope for mankind.

Capturing one or both of the political parties in the United States.

Gaining control of the schools.

Infiltrating the press.

Gaining control of key positions in radio, television and motion pictures.

Breaking down cultural standards of morality.

Infiltrating the churches and replace revealed religion with social religion.

Discrediting the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

Richard Gardner, a Columbia University Professor and Council on Foreign Relations member described the methods of a New World Order:

“…an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece.”

Gardner named the following organizations that would help fulfill that objective: the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the Law of the Sea Treaty, the World Food Conference, the World Population Conference, and the United Nations.

Other treaties and organizations that will help fulfill this objective are the North American Fair Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), and the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and the Global Warming Treaty. The recent Bailout, the Stimulus Plan, the Omnibus Plan, Cap and Trade, and the “universal” Health Care Plan, will effectively impose a jizya tax on Americans and control many aspects of life.

Judge Advocate General of the Navy from 1956-1960 and a former member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Rear Admiral Chester Ward, warned the American people about the dangers of globalism involving the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, by saying:

“The most powerful clique in these elitist groups has one objective—they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the Council on Foreign Relations comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power to end up in the control of global government.”

Ward also warned:

“The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government”.

The Council on Foreign Relation sister organization is the Trilateral Commission. The Trilateral Commission was co-founded by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski calls for:

“Movement toward a larger community of the developed nations . . . through a variety of indirect ties and already developing limitations on national sovereignty.”

A Council on Foreign Relations member and U.N. spokesman, Walt Rostow praised the UN by saying:

“It is, therefore, an American interest to see an end to nationhood.”

The United Nations will stand to govern a one-world government. President George H. W. Bush may have thought the UN was a peace-keeping organization that had the unbiased interests of all the world. Thus, the former president declared his support for the UN in this 1991 statement:

“My vision of a New World Order foresees a United Nations with a revitalized peacekeeping function.”

And a second quote from the George H. W. Bush in 1992:

“It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance.”

As the descriptions suggest, Clinton’s Global Warming Treaty and the NATO Expansion Treaty were designed to bind the United States in a global web of entanglement for the purpose of “binding international commitments to protect the environment.” He referred to his treaties as “international ground rules for the 21st century, ” urging all Americans to support “the emerging international system.”

Warren Christopher, the Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, told CNN in 1993:

“We must get the New World Order on track and bring the UN into its correct role in regards to the United States.”

Undoubtedly Senior Bush and Bill Clinton did not know that the UN would fall under Islamic control. That is because the largest voting bloc in the UN is the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), and the OIC is a group of 57 (56 by other counts) Islamic dominated nations. In 1990, they adopted the “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,” dictating that Islam is the only legitimate religion. The Cairo Declaration is bloated with hypocritical vanity and double standards. Pierced with loopholes, it is a manifesto declaring that Islamic law (Shari’ah) is the only true source of human rights. Article Two of the declaration employs Orwellian phrasing to declare its plan for governance:

“(a) Life is a God-given gift and the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is the duty of individuals, societies and states to protect this right from any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life except for a Shari’ah prescribed reason.

(b) It is forbidden to resort to such means as may result in the genocidal annihilation of mankind.

(c) The preservation of human life throughout the term of time willed by God is a duty prescribed by Shari’ah

(d) Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. It is the duty of the state to safeguard it, and it is prohibited to breach it without a Shari’ah prescribed reason.”[8]

The OIC and its allied organizations have aggressively engaged in efforts to expand Shari’ah law in the West. If that were to happen, it will be the end of the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience that we cherish. Under the guise of multiculturalism, new rules will be enforced, and those rules will almost inevitably be Islamic—much to the dismay of leftist-socialists and non-secular communists.

The global governance agenda will utilize those immigrants in America who care or know nothing about democracy like invasive species. In an attempt to divide, weaken and conquer a traditional “ecosystem” with ideological warfare to force Americans to submit to global laws and courts.

It has been reported that George Bush II brought more Muslims into America than the combined total of all U.S. presidents, and Obama is expected to continue the invasive influx and outright importation of Muslims, whose totalitarian ideology enforced with Shari’ah Law is openly hostile to all free thinking individuals.[9]

For decades, America has succumbed to the New World Order ideology and it is happening through commerce, education, immigration, the media, and political alliances. We are naïve to think a New World Order will not easily fall under Islamic domination. As a result, Americans of all political affiliations and nationalities are potentially unwary victims of a threatening ideological invasion that must be understood in order to be stopped.

Introduction to “Walking the Plank to a Dhimmi Nation” by Mary Christina Love

Introduction

Victories in Islam are like a Russian doll, with each victory leading to a larger victory, and Islam is exerting increasing influence on Western cultures through immigration, oil economics, cultural exchange, education, political correctness, political contributions, and the threat of terror.

“Walking the Plank: To a Dhimmi Nation” reveals how America has been systematically submitting to Islam for decades as American businessmen and politicians endorse Islamic causes in exchange for oil, money, and power.

Submission to Islam as an attitude of concession, surrender and appeasement towards Islamic demands under coercion and constant fear of reprisal. As a pacifist reaction to aggression, submission to Islam is an attitude of servitude resulting from cowardice, vulnerability, bribery and extortion. It is the state of “dhimmitude,” where a dhimmi is a non-Muslim entity that accepts the conditions of Islamic law and remains safe by peacefully surrendering to Islamic terms.

The book suggests that the world trade center bombings of 1993 and 2001 were designed to further enable Islamic expansion in the United States by destroying evidence of who the world’s real imperialists are, and by giving Muslims permission to feel aggrieved and demand special protection status.

In what may be the largest organized crime ever in history, the author contends that global warming and the recent financial crisis and bailout are part of a profitable scheme, or financial jihad, to transfer trillions of dollars into Islamist Saudi coffers and drive America into generations of dhimmitude.

Most Americans agree that Bush kept us safe from another terrorist attack after September 11, 2001. But just because we are not witnessing violence and death on American soil, we cannot assume that we are safe from jihad. The reality is that violent attacks are not necessary for jihad if other methods achieve the same results.

Those who do not understand jihad and Islamic doctrine tend to attribute the reasons for Islamic grievance to poverty, desperation, and misunderstanding. They often believe that being nice will solve our differences, that cooperation, aid, and commerce will alleviate tense situations, and that everyone just wants harmony and happiness. We believe that if the unsatisfied only had a good income, or an education, or if they do not perceive discrimination, they will be content. This is wishful, delusional thinking. As demonstrated in Saudi Arabia, widespread prosperity does not stop terrorism. It actually enables the spread of Islam via stealth and manipulation that is backed by the threat of terror. The lack of gratitude from Islamic recipients of aid and cooperation is because Islamists view all concessions as victories for Islam and their due from non-Muslims. What Americans do not understand about Islam is that its victories are like a Russian doll, always followed by a larger one.

After eight years of compromising liberties for security, an agenda to Islamicize America is well underway. Religion, politics, finances, education, oil, culture, and terrorism are inseparable in jihad. September 11, 2001 may be the only large scale act of terror necessary to advance and achieve a takeover. American are still in denial of something we cannot comprehend and do not wish to know about. The explosion of the World Trade Center on 9/11 caused much more than rubble, the horrible death of 3,000 people, and insurance payouts at the end of corporate money trails. Files and files of evidence went up in a poof of smoke that day. Evidence in those files could have proven a web of extensive financial and political associations through ownership titles, transactions, statements, etc. revealing who the world’s real imperialists are. At the expense of American citizen’s lives and security, half a century of transactions involving Middle Eastern petrodollars vanished.

My insight to Islam began with my marriage to a Moslem who came to America on a student visa pre-9/11. In the late 1970’s to mid 1980’s, I read the Koran at his suggestion and subsequently learned that by persuasion, intimidation, terror, stealth or force, Islam intends to make the whole world submissive to its oppressive ideology. My former husband was not shy about expressing his thoughts on what he believed were American deficiencies and cultural inadequacies. He enlightened me to the fact that Muslim people and Muslim leaders carefully scrutinize our society, our politics, and our presidents, just like the Iranian President Ahmadenijad openly and smugly does today. Our studious and disingenuously friendly Muslim acquaintances appeared on the surface to be quite moderate, however they were serious Muslims who told me that democracy, capitalism and American politics was corrupt to the core, and against the law of God. They spoke of Americans as superficial and greedy. They often said that Islam will rule the world someday because it is the fastest growing religion and a complete way of life. They believed Islam superior over all other religions because it is inclusive of politics, social behavior, economics, and worship.

While scrutinizing and insulting Americans, Muslim students flocked to the United States to attend our universities. I doubted that Islam was so complete if Muslims felt it necessary to leave their countries, which they always presented as nearly a paradise, for a formal education in a non-Muslim country. I wondered why they came here since they regularly belittled our way of life, our holidays, our politics, our financial system, our values, our hygiene, and our manners. In my early twenties, I began to fall prey to this “white guilt” indoctrination. I realized later that those friendships were conditional and hinged solely on my willingness to learn about, practice, and approve of Islam.

During those years, President Jimmy Carter was trying to show Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini what a nice guy he was. It was humiliating to watch CNN and see the Iranian students seize the embassy in Teheran in November 1979, holding the staff hostage until January 1981. Like most of America, this was my introduction to “radical” Islam. It happened early in a marriage that I was determined would work. I would have done anything to help my now X-husband integrate happily into America. I believed the stories of how horrible the Shah was. I began to practice “moderate” Islam and read the Koran.

Though reading the Koran is not required in Islam, by the time I finished reading it, I knew I was not a Muslim, and I knew it would cause a problem for me and my children if I ever stopped practicing it. Hoping it would not mean the end of my marriage, I knew I would eventually have to find the courage to tell my husband, who was becoming more radical every day, that I could not practice Islam any longer. The more I learned and practiced the religion, the more was required of me, including disassociations with friends, family, culture, and values to the extent that I felt like a traitor to myself, my family and my country.

Jimmy Carter continued his weak stance too, persuading the Tehran regime that it could get away with anything. Far from showing Khomeini that the United States disapproved of his comments and activities, the U.S. government pathetic and helpless approach convinced Khomeini and all Muslims that the Islamic revolution was big, strong, and right.

Americans, including myself, should have learned from the hostage situation in Teheran that submissiveness to anti-American radicals does not work. Appeasement did not convince Tehran that America was its friend, only that it was so weak as to make aggression all the more justifiable. Realizing that Ronald Reagan would be tougher, the revolutionary students released the American embassy hostages when Iran was suffering from an Iraqi invasion that Iranians called “The American Imposed War.” They hated Reagan for that war.

I knew that no matter how softly I explained my decision to quit practicing Islam, it would probably mean the end of my marriage. As action and time would later prove, I was correct. The experience was and still is a microcosm of what goes on in politics. The divorce was definitely cruel and unusual by the standards of Western culture. To borrow benign and politically correct words from who was then a future President Bush, it was “not pretty.”

Years later when the twin towers came down, I was not surprised. I remembered warning words from my former husband that “Muslims (not terrorists) will attack America someday if American politicians do not stop promoting democracy throughout the world.”

Americans cannot conceive the difference between the goals of Islam and the goals of a free society. Westerners take freedom and truth for granted, so they cannot imagine a society that does not honor those virtues. The differences between freedom and totalitarianism are indescribable when one has not experienced the alternate. American naïveté makes us dangerously exploitable and predictable. We do not have the agenda or the experience to fully understand true oppression. I found out that Islamic motives are so offensive that describing them is an offensive act in itself–to the extent that it is actually labeled politically incorrect and hate speech. The Islamization of the West warning creates a “kill the messenger” situation.

“Political correctness” supports a political agenda; a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Political correctness does not describe truth, honesty or morality. Rather, it disguises and enables an oppressive agenda againstfreedom and truth and holds citizens hostage in their own countries. Political correctness toggles a victim into an aggressor and turns free thinkers into silenced, meek and conquered slaves. Virtue, self-respect, truth, reason, creativity, freedom, and dignity are useless in a politically correct atmosphere because they are the very virtues that will expose an oppressive agenda.

Though many free thinkers have been trying to send a warning about Islamofascism, there are still too many in blissful denial. As a result, we have been kowtowing to Islamist demands ever since 9/11.

So how long does it take to get the message that this is an ideological revolution with huge ambitions, an agenda that will use oppression, intimidation, terror, deception, bribery, extortion, and our own love of freedom–just to remove freedom from the American mindscape. This is the duality that aims to force America to submit to a totalitarian ideology behind a veil of religion.

In the name of fairness the 9/11 tragedy was exploited by Muslims to demand special treatment at the expense of valid American concerns. After 9/11, religious and racial profiling gave way to preferential treatment for Muslims over Non-Muslims as they hijacked the opportunity to cry victim.

Between 2001 and 2008, mosque numbers in America increased from around 100 to 2,300, with most of them funded by Saudi sources. On the 2008 anniversary of 9/11, NYPD provided extra security for Islamic mosques.

In 2006, the Department of Homeland Security gave out small amounts of grant money to synagogues and Jewish schools after they received threats from Muslims. A number of mosques, whose anti-semantic and anti-capitalist agenda generates fearful and defensive reactions, then began to help themselves to some of the available grant money.

Even though we have not been physically or violently attacked on American soil since September 11, 2001, we are easily falling for a variety of jihad tactics. The tactics may change but the seditious goal of Islamic jihad is always the same. Muslims in the U.S. are literally using-up American tax dollars and sense of fairness to promote policies that will use-up our Democracy in favor of Islam.

Muslims regularly demand special privileges in the workplace and in schools, labeling those who object as “racists” and “Islamophobes.” Tolerance and fairness has been mis-applied for an ultimate agenda of intolerance for generous, innocent, naive Americans, not the formerly defined terrorists. We have literally tied ourselves helplessly in knots in an effort to be politically correct and to tolerate an ideological supremist agenda that does not ever intend to integrate into our freedom loving, free-thinking American society.

A statement on a Muslim Brotherhood memo entered into evidence in the 2007 Texas based Holy Land Foundation case:

“The Ikhwan (the ‘brothers’) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”